Comment by txrx0000
17 days ago
These discussions around decision-making seem to ignore what a "decision" is. How does a human being make a decision? And what exactly is happening when a person decides to do something?
Suppose I check the weather forecast 5 mins before leaving the house, and it says 95% chance of rain today. Do I bring or not bring an umbrella?
I would bring an umbrella. I would made that decision to bring an umbrella. But my decision to do that is (at least partially) the result of the weather forecast. The causal chain is (atmospheric conditions -> weather forecasters -> my decision). Did the weather forecaster just "program" me? Did the water molecules moving in the sky just "program" the weather forecaster?
My answer to these questions is as follows: a decision, and my understanding of the concept/definition of a "decision", refers to exactly the processes where I do something as a result of external influence/programming, rather than just internal thought/processing. I could think really hard and imagine myself moving forward at 100 meters per second, or even beyond the speed of light, but in reality, no matter how hard my neurons fire to imagine that scenario, my actions are still physically constrained. Such physical constraints influence our every decision. That is the "programming" part. Everyone and everything "programs"/influences everything else.
That said, perhaps the particles which make up my brain/body has its own whimsy. Perhaps there is a hidden local random number generator that samples from the distribution of possible future states available to this particular clump of matter that is "I".
How different is this from a computer running a non-deterministic program such as an LLM-based AI agent? Remember, every token sampling involves an RNG. They don't perform as well or feel as creative and human-like when deterministically sampled.
This isn't an excuse for anyone, especially not for Anthropic or OpenAI. But I think these are questions we ought to ask if we are to honestly discuss liability and perhaps even personhood for AIs that are increasingly autonomous.
The technical/technological nature of the system that made the choice is irrelevant. That is, I think it's right to ignore what a decision is, as you put it. The ability to make decisions is not the ability to choose -- it's the ability, right, privelege, obligation, expectation to take responsibility.
Discussing anything like personhood for AI is really jumping the gun.
The chatbot is software. The software does what it is told. It performs tasks requested of it by the user/operator in line with the (designed, ) immplemented functionality of the code. If the software fails to do what it is told, the vendor has not provided working software. If an operator controlling some software does not do so in a reasonable, safe manner, the operator is negligent. If damages result from such failures or actions, the people who made the decisions that led to that are the people who are responsible.
It does not matter how complex the software is: if a vendor of some software doesn't expect it fail in costly ways because it's too complex or hard to understand, that is a (legal, ethical, moral) failure of the vendor.
It does not matter how autonomous it is: an autonomous sprinkler system that floods the neighbour's basement is not held liable for the damages. The owner, installer, vendor, etc. is. -- maybe the neighbour even did(n't) something wrong!
In the context of free will (disregarding the full context here for a moment), this is where it actually gets interesting.
Theologists and philosophers alike have been thinking about the problem what "free will" even means exactly because of this, when there are no preconditions informing my decision, what does "free will" even mean?
In German, I have heard this being framed as "bedingt freier" versus "unbedingt freier Wille".
As a thought experiment, it makes a very good argument for a deterministic world view, quantum woo aside.
When there are no reasons for what I decide, what are my decisions based on? A whim? Chance? My personal taste? Well, my personal taste is a reason. And all reasons come from somewhere, right?
On the other hand, thinking of my decisions as without preconditions: what does that give me?
Decisions without rationale?
Sure, one can make everything more fuzzy by introducing probablities, even real chance if you like.
But also then, total determinism with hidden information is an immune theory that cannot be refuted, so it explains nothing.
But was does true randomness help with? I'd say, from a philosophical perspective, it doesn't bring any interesting argument to the table.
So this leaves us with free will as the only useful way of understanding ourselves and our role in the world, but on the other hand, it seems like a sneaky device for ourselves to ignore the infinitely confusing thought of considering ourselves determined by our circumstances (which, as a thought, already has real side-effects, too).